Andrews v. DCHA, 316 A.3d 469

Background

Chelsea Andrews, former Deputy Executive Director and Special Counsel at D.C. Housing Authority (DCHA), was terminated shortly after raising concerns about DCHA's procurement of potentially counterfeit KN95 masks during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Andrews alleged she was fired in retaliation for whistleblowing about the purchase of non-federally approved masks from an acquaintance of a senior adviser, despite her attempts to standardize procurement practices.
She filed claims under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act (DCWPA), as well as breach of contract and negligent supervision/retention claims.
The trial court dismissed her DCWPA claim, denied her motion to amend the complaint, and granted summary judgment for DCHA on her contract and tort claims.
Andrews appealed the denials and adverse rulings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of Motion to Amend Complaint	Andrews argued her motion to amend was timely and meritorious and should be allowed under liberal amendment standards.	DCHA argued that amendment should not be allowed after judgment on the merits and cited timing issues.	Reversed. The trial court failed to apply the relevant five-factor standard for leave to amend.
Summary Judgment on Contract Claim	Andrews claimed breach due to delayed payment of contractually promised severance and notice pay, causing economic harm.	DCHA argued there was no contractual time for payment, and Andrews was not entitled to further damages after accepting payment.	Reversed and remanded. The trial court did not address economic harm from payment delay; further factual findings needed.
Summary Judgment on Negligent Supervision Claim	Andrews alleged DCHA negligently retained a supervisor who retaliated against her, violating a duty of care.	DCHA argued that statutory whistleblower protections precluded a common law negligent supervision claim in this context.	Affirmed. No common law duty for whistleblower protection when statutory remedies exist; no stand-alone tort claim.
Protected Disclosure under DCWPA	Andrews contended her reports about the masks were protected disclosures showing abuse of authority and danger to public health.	DCHA argued that her actions reflected only disagreement with management, not a protected disclosure, per prior complaint facts.	Reversal of denial to amend means this issue will be reconsidered in amended pleadings.

Key Cases Cited

Pannell v. District of Columbia, 829 A.2d 474 (D.C. 2003) (sets out factors on leave to amend; establishes presumption in favor of amendment)
Miller-McGee v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 920 A.2d 430 (D.C. 2007) (standard for construing complaints on motions to amend and summary judgment)
Griffin v. Acacia Life Ins. Co., 925 A.2d 564 (D.C. 2007) (defines requirements for negligent supervision claims under D.C. law)
Adams v. George W. Cochran & Co., 597 A.2d 28 (D.C. 1991) (scope of common law wrongful discharge in D.C.)
Murray v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 953 A.2d 308 (D.C. 2008) (reasonable time for performance implied when contract is silent on timing)